Well, considering they're counting number of attacks it wouldn't make a material difference.
Some points I raise should have been presented _alongside_ the ones NYT used. That's one set of issues. Base rate & absolute both matter.
-
-
Other points go to the validity or lack thereof of the underlying data set--like saying 'since 9/11' when they mean 'since 9/12'.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Disagree on pop numbers because I think you're being glib with "everyone who voted for Trump."
-
I was being deliberately glib. It was a joke, FFS. But 20% vs. 0.05% gives a 400:1 ratio.
-
But their criterion for 'Far-Right Violent Extremist' is 'enormous number of people, 2%-20% of the pop' ∩ 'committed a crime'.
-
If Islamist Terrorism is 'Islamist' ∩ 'committed a crime', then the base rate comparison has to be between '2-20% of pop' and 'Islamist'.
-
Taking a high estimate for 'Islamist' of 0.05% (radicalization is far less popular in the US) and low estimate for 'far-right' you get 40:1.
-
That is the underlying calculation I was running off, but: 140 characters.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.